Scrooge (w/Albert Finney)
Frankenstein (1931)
The Day The Earth Stood Still
Between the Lines
The Sterile Cuckoo
Local Hero
The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension
A Hard Day's Night
Dr. Strangelove
Big Night

And as the great Sir Edwin (noted English actor) said in a Monty Python sketch:

"That's right, yes, I found the role a very taxing one. I mean, er, Hamlet has eight thousand two hundred and sixty-two words, you see.

I don't want you to get the impression it's just a question of the number of words... um... I mean, getting them in the right order is just as important. Old Peter Hall used to say to me, "They're all there Eddie, now we've got to get them in the right order." For example, you can also say one word louder than another--er, "To *be* or not to be," or "To be *or* not to be," or "To be or not to *be*"--you see?And so on."

I watched Branagh's version of Hamlet back in college when I did a video analysis for one of my classes. Basically, each student had to analyze a Shakespearian play as it has been portrayed through the history of film. As I was doing an analysis of Ophelia from a feminist perspective, I watched *every* Hamlet ever made up to that time! Branagh's was a bit on the long side (I'm sorry to say, though he's a fab actor, he is so full of himself it is hard for me to really like Mr. Kenneth--his ego kind of overpowers his own movies.) Interesting perspective for Hamlet, though--I like the choice of time and place (setting) and I'm such a fan of Kate Winslett it was worth it just to analyze her Ophelia.

OK, I will admit, even with my dislike of Branagh in general, I really like his performances as Henry V, in Much Ado about Nothing, and as Sir Earnest Shackleton. . .so, I guess he's not all *that* bad--most of the time. But man, I still don't like the guy. . .(so torn inside--just like Hamlet! To like Branagh or not like Branagh? That is the question!)

The same could be applied to Olivier, who in my opinion, though great at certain types of roles was not a great Hamlet, he was always too damn cold, cold, cold cold, too calculating, too dispassionate. The man was a great heroic actor, but in terms of delivery of emotion or real feelings he was sadly inadequate to say the least.

His finest Shakespeare film is his Richard III, he is perfect on that role of the ironic, scheming and cold-hearted villain.

His last filmed Shakespeare, a television Lear in the early 80s was the one performance of his that actually moved me. Perhaps because at that time he was the right age for Lear and he was physically vulnerable and frail himself he perfectly captured the doddering old King foolishly giving his kingdom to his rapacious daughters.

Whatever you say about Branagh he brings emotion, he brings passion to his roles.

This is sacrilege! Kenneth Branagh is probably one of the most noble, quietly-spoken English actors who never bathes in his glory. You'd never find him making a fool out of himself stumbling out of the sleazy nightclubs - he's a bastion of integrity.

"Language has not the power that Love indites: The Soul lies buried in the ink that writes" ~ John Clare

Heaven/Hell wrote:This is sacrilege! Kenneth Branagh is probably one of the most noble, quietly-spoken English actors who never bathes in his glory. You'd never find him making a fool out of himself stumbling out of the sleazy nightclubs - he's a bastion of integrity.

He also screwed around on Emma Thompson and has an ego the size of Mt. Rushmore.

I'm not knocking the man's ability to act, mind you. And generally, I can keep the real person and the character he plays separate in my mind (i.e. enjoy the character without being bothered by his real self) but with some actors it's harder than with others. Maybe he has straightened himself out in the last few years--maybe he's not as egotistical as he once was. . .I hope it's true. I heard there was a time he denied his birthplace--I mean, he tried to downplay that he is Irish--in order to climb the ranks in the theatre. Is that true? I hope not.

AsphodelElysium wrote:Gilderoy Lockhart was about the only role I actually believed him in.

When I heard he was cast as Lockhart, I was soooooooo happy. I knew he would be perfect.

What am I viewing tonight? THE OFFICE SEASON PREMIERE, WOOT!

Yes, he was great as Lockhart. I'm actually reading the Chamber of Secrets right now (great to read right before bed--and a refreshing change from all that Leadership stuff for class!). Every time Lockhart makes an appearance I can't help but see Branagh's shining face He played the character perfectly.

Man, I wanted to see The Office premire. . .but I was in class and forgot to set my video recorder. Ah, well, there's always reruns.

My brother Dan just introduced me to the phenomenon known as Netflicks. Now, I've heard of it before, but a few days ago I decided to give it a try. I have my account set up so that Netflicks will send me two videos at a time--I expect I will become more movie-savvy in a relatively short time. Today, my first DVD's come in the mail and I've started with Ken Burns' documentary about baseball. I've seen it before a looong time ago. It'll be nice to view it again. It's interesting, because Burns introduces baseball with a quote by an American poet (I think it was Emerson) who noted in a letter that he recently saw kids in the street playing a new game called "base," which he described as "a type of ball". So, hmm, did Emerson coin the word "baseball"? 'Tis a possibility.

Musing at the delight of kids playing the street...sounds more like Walt Whitman to me. What an amazing guy. Every time I read something new by or about him, I just sit back in quiet awe as it tends to overwhelm me so.

"Language has not the power that Love indites: The Soul lies buried in the ink that writes" ~ John Clare

Heaven/Hell wrote:Musing at the delight of kids playing the street...sounds more like Walt Whitman to me. What an amazing guy. Every time I read something new by or about him, I just sit back in quiet awe as it tends to overwhelm me so.

You know what, as I sat down to watch the first installment of the Baseball documentary, I discovered it *was* Walt Whitman who made that comment. In fact, they quote him quite a few times in the first DVD. It certainly does make sense that Whitman would notice baseball. Apparently, he enjoyed the game quite a bit--at least watching it

Malia wrote:You know what, as I sat down to watch the first installment of the Baseball documentary, I discovered it *was* Walt Whitman who made that comment. In fact, they quote him quite a few times in the first DVD. It certainly does make sense that Whitman would notice baseball. Apparently, he enjoyed the game quite a bit--at least watching it

Not just baseball or the sound of kids' laughter - Whitman enjoyed life itself. The greater part of his day was spent walking (despite partial paralysis) around enjoying nature...the grass, the trees, the sun, the birds; he took pleasure in the 'simple' things. He constantly had a song on his lips.
Indeed, the most remarkable thing about Whitman is, after Leaves of Grass, the inspiration for which seems to have made a life-changing effect on him, his life was so unremarkable on the outside.
He asked for nothing off of anyone, just that they would appreciate the little commonplace things in life that often went unnoticed, like birdsong or a sunset. He loved his friends and his rivals equally, without a hint of pretence. Those who discarded Leaves as fanciful or rambling drivel, he was grateful of their having taken time to read it. Certainly, Whitman found himself unable of articulating the joy he found in life, though he often tried.
All who met him or spent some time in his presence went away feeling their spirits lifted for often weeks at a time. He seemed to be the embodiment of the 'Thing of Beauty' in Keats' Endymion, that thing which when encountered is never forgot and always offers joy and solace in times of sorrow.

"Language has not the power that Love indites: The Soul lies buried in the ink that writes" ~ John Clare